Why did Obama change the plan?
In his announcement, the president gave two reasons for the change in policy:
First, the latest intelligence indicates that Iran is concentrating on short- and medium-range missiles rather than long-range missiles.
Second, technological advances in land- and sea-based interceptors and sensors mean they can now be more effective in defending Europe. Obama also said the new approach, using advanced versions of the SM-3 ship-based missile being developed for use by the U.S. Navy, will be more cost-effective and offer the military more flexibility.
For the next two years, the United States will deploy the sea-based Aegis weapon system, the SM-3 interceptor and sensors such as the Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance system to monitor threats, the White House said. More advanced systems will come later.
“The Obama administration is hoping that relations with Moscow will improve and the Russians will help the West try to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”
It would be good to know that something more than “hoping” was achieved here.
Indeed, one would have “hoped” that Obama’s administration would have gotten buy-in from the Poles and Czechs on the virtues of the new deployment before simply plowing ahead. Instead, it would appear that the only nation they consulted with was Russia, which is naturally eager to re-subjugate the nations of Eastern Europe. It’s a shame Obama is so willing to go along.
Watch very carefully to see if the Russians complete their sale of the S-300 missile defense system to Iran. If this happens, it will prove the Obama administration to be complete incompetents in foreign policy. The S-300 will compel Israel to attack Iran, regardless of what the U.S. says, and touch off an arms race in the Middle East. I am also afraid it will restart the distasteful practice of Israel spying on the U.S. ala Jonathan Pollard, so they can find out just how far down the river they are being sold by team Obama.
The Obama presidency is starting to look a lot like the Carter presidency, except now we have the people who were burning down college campuses in the ’60s running the country.
Putting aside whether it was the right decision, the Obama Administration handled it poorly. I agree that the least they could have done was consult the Poles and the Czechs first. Then to add insult to injury they announced the decision on the very day that the Soviets invaded Poland 70 years ago. Announcing the decision to pull back on that very day had to be seen as a pure slap in the face.
Case in point: “[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_re_eu/eu_eastern_europe_missile_defense_22]Poles, Czechs: US missile defense shift a betrayal[/url].”
I believe that this is a poor decision on the part of the administration for three reasons:
1. We cannot rely on a sea-based missile system to defend our nation – the physics just aren’t there. The SM-3 has an effective range of less than 200NM and, like all interceptor missiles, is most effective against missiles that are coming mostly straight at them. It doesn’t do side passing shots or chase shots very well. That said, a ship parked outside of Washington DC could protect Washington from a sea-born attack and little more. What ship will protect Colorado Springs?
2. While the Iranians (and others) are currently working toward medium and short range missile systems, it takes longer to deploy an anti-missile system than to create a long range missile. In other words, we need to start developing an anti-long range system, before they deploy the missile.
3. This will be seen by the Russians as a ‘green light’ to continuing bullying their former client republics. The incidents with gas pricing, the ‘tune-up’ war in Georgia and other events show that Putin intends to reassert Russia regional hegemony. Unless the Obama administration got some ‘under the table’ concessions, the U.S. damaged its relationship with Central/Eastern Europe for no reason. Even if they did get some secret concession, it will be difficult to hold the Russians to it. The better tactic would have been to announce that the plans to deploy the radar and missiles systems are being put on hold pending negotiations with all parties – then let the chess-playing Russians make their next move.
George Friedman’s latest book (THE NEXT 100 YEARS) is a great read and has a lengthy analysis of this situation.